Talk:Patrick Heron Watson

[Untitled]
I do find it odd on Wikipedia that the more comprehensively one gathers information the more it seems to expose it to claims of "original research" This is no more original than any of my other articles, it is simply more comprehensive There is a strange irony that articles taken from a single source appear FAR more readily accepted than those from several sources. This appears counter-intuitive in terms of what actually makes a good article. There also seems to be confusion to the acceptability of sources that are 100% hard copy and those which are scanned images of the same articles. The bottom line should simply be "could someone else have found the same information" had they wished to create the article. In this instance 100% of the material can be found on line and verified. My role here has simply been to filter the large amount of information viewable online into a manageable article. I think criticism is therefore seriously misplaced and a strong disincentive to creating such articles --Stephencdickson (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)